In Re Arturo A.

John A. Don, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.

OPINION

FROEHLICH, J.

In In re Amanda B. (1992) 3 Cal. App.4th 935 [ 4 Cal. Rptr.2d 922 ], we ruled that review of an order terminating reunification services and referring the case to a Welfare and Institutions Code [1] section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing must be undertaken by petition for extraordinary writ, and cannot be mounted as an appeal from the later judgment rendered at the selection and implementation hearing. Our ruling on the motion to dismiss the appeal by mother in this case addresses the related issue of review of the same alleged error when it is packaged in the form of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file the timely writ petition.

Arturo, the minor child the subject of this action, was first removed from parental care in November 1988. The principal parental care problem derived from the mother's drug addiction. Following an extended period of treatment in accordance with the court-ordered reunification plan, a definitive section 366.22 review hearing (366.22 hearing) was held on August 17, 1990. The court at that time found that reasonable reunification…